RE:Subscriber UpdateLet me see if I get this:
Acasti management personally promised you top line results before Christmas.
A week after Acasti management made that promise to you, Haywood sent out a letter to a multitude of people. Telling other people that a company he owns 9% of the shares is not managing their business very well.
Acasti management somehow became aware of this letter. And subsequently scuttles the intended date set for top line results...
So in order to 'save face' with ol' George, Acasti management violated several regulatory laws and statutes, putting themselves and their companies future at risk.
How did that feel to be one upped by George Haywood.
Is it a usual practice to slam publicly the business acumen of a company one owns nearly 10% of? Wouldn't that lower the value?